Decision Making in Students Differing in Binge Drinking Patterns
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 1

Decision Making in Students Differing in Binge Drinking Patterns Anna E. Goudriaan, Emily R. Grekin, and Kenneth J. Sher PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 89 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Decision Making in Students Differing in Binge Drinking Patterns Anna E. Goudriaan, Emily R. Grekin, and Kenneth J. Sher University of Missouri-Columbia and the Midwest Alcoholism Research Center. . Correlations

Download Presentation

Decision Making in Students Differing in Binge Drinking Patterns Anna E. Goudriaan, Emily R. Grekin, and Kenneth J. Sher

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Decision making in students differing in binge drinking patterns anna e goudriaan emily r grekin and kenneth j she

Decision Making in Students Differing in Binge Drinking Patterns

Anna E. Goudriaan, Emily R. Grekin, and Kenneth J. Sher

University of Missouri-Columbia and the Midwest Alcoholism Research Center

.

  • Correlations

    • IGT Advantageous Choices (Stage 2 + 3 + 4) and Impulsivity: No significant correlations.

    • IGT Advantageous Choices correlates negatively with Negative Alcohol Consequences at Wave 0 through Wave 4 (r =-.28 to -.19), but was non-significant for Wave 5 and Wave 6.

    • IGT Advantageous Choices correlates negatively with a composite score of heavy drinking (binge drinking, getting high, and getting drunk), but only at wave 0 (r =-.28) and wave 2 (r=-.24).

  • Effects of Alcohol Use Disorders

    • Mancovas with the AUD group (n=68) and non-AUD group (n=124), did not reveal significant effects.

    • Decision making was not affected by lifetime presence of alcohol abuse or dependence.

    • Introduction

    • Alcohol and substance dependent persons perform less well on behavioral decision making tasks, like the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT;Bechara et al., 1999).

    • Heavy social drinking has been associated with diminished attention and visuospatial skills, especially for heavy social drinkers (>21 drinks/week; Parsons and Nixon, 1998).

    • Little is known regarding the relation between heavy social drinking or binge drinking and decision making skills among young adults.

    • The goal of this study was to determine whether levels of alcohol use and binge drinking are related to differential decision making, as measured by the IGT.

    • We also investigated the relation between decision making and self-report measures of impulsivity, real life negative consequences of alcohol use, and a more general heavy drinking measure.

    Data Analysis

    • The LCGM resulted in a four class solution, with a probability of categorization in the correct class (frequent binge drinking class: see left Figure) of:

      • 88 % for the Non binge drinkers

      • 71 % for the Moderate binge drinkers

      • 71% for the Increasing binge drinkers

      • 82 % for the High binge drinkers

        Results

  • MANCOVAs Iowa Gambling Task:

    Although all four groups learned to choose the advantageous decks

    (positive slope over 4 learning stages: see Figure on the right):

    • A Group by Advantageous choice interaction was present, F(3,184)=5.40, p<.01, η2=.08.

    • Posthoc analyses showed that the high binge drinking group performed worse than the non-binge drinking group (p<.01, Bonferroni corrected).

  • Method

    • Participants were selected from a cohort of 2866 individuals taking part in a longitudinal study of student health (IMPACTS), assessing alcohol and substance related behaviors every six months, from precollege (Wave 0) through Fall of the third college year (Wave 4).

    • Latent Class Growth Analysis (LCGA) was used to classify students into one of four groups, based on their binge drinking across 5 time points:

      • Non-binge drinking at any time point (36%)

      • Moderate binge drinking at any time point (30%)

      • Increasing binge drinking across time (10%)

      • Heavy binge drinking at all time points (24%)

  • 50 participants were selected from each binge drinking group

    • Conclusions

      • Chronic binge drinking students, who consume high amounts of alcohol, perform worse on a decision making task than non-binge drinking students.

      • Less advantageous decision making is associated with higher levels of real life disadvantageous decisions related to alcohol use (Negative Alcohol Consequences).

      • Decision making strategies are not related to impulsivity or sensation seeking.

      • The results imply that in young adults, the amount of alcohol used, and pattern of alcohol use (binge drinking) may have a stronger relation to diminished neurocognitive functions, than alcohol use diagnoses per se.

    Measures

    Decision Making Task:

    Iowa Gambling Task – computerized (Bechara et al. 1999)

    • The task required 100 choices from one of four card decks:

      • 2 disadvantageous decks: high rewards, but even higher losses

      • 2 advantageous decks: lower rewards but also lower losses

        Subjects had to discover which decks were advantageous and learn to select cards accordingly.

        Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS; Robins et al., 1998)

        Axis-1 Diagnoses established based on this structured clinical interview

        Impulsivity:Barratt Impulsivity Scale (BIS)

        Zuckerman Impulsivity/Sensation Seeking Scale (ImpSS)

        Negative Alcohol Consequences:

        Composite of a 5-item inventory, e.g.: Drunk driving, not showing up at class or work, being drunk at school/work, continuing drinking despite physical/psychological problems that get worse with drinking.

    References

    Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Damasio, A. R., & Lee, G. P. (1999). Different contributions of the human amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex to decision-making. Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 5473.

    Parsons, O. A., & Nixon, S. J. (1998). Cognitive functioning in sober social drinkers: A review of the research since 1986. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59(2), 180-190.

    Reprints

    [email protected] or [email protected]

    This research was supported by NIH grants R37 AA07231 and T32 AA13526 to Kenneth J. Sher and P50 AA11998 to Andrew C. Heath.


  • Login